One of the easiest ways to gauge a stranger's
political stance is to ask them what they think about government. What government's
place is in our lives and how much of our labor should be devoted to its maintenance
is the root of many political discussions. The person's answer, if they give you
one, can immediately inform you where they lie on the political spectrum. Regrettably,
Jacob Sullum, one of the two Senior Editors at Reason
magazine, disproves my thesis. He would perhaps answer my question about government
with a retort that would immediately cause me to place him at the same point I
am at on the aforementioned spectrum. However, this would be incorrect as he,
like many libertarians, holds positions that are quite distant from those of us
on the right. He also makes a convincing case that libertarians are the true inheritors
of classical liberalism.

Reason
is a publication that questions everything and everybody. It is as independent
a source as I've read and one can never know for certain what angle they're going
to take on a particular topic. It has a shotgun approach to the issues and it
contains articles on topics that you may not find anywhere else. The website is
an excellent addition to your browser as it offers extensive material from their
print version and new pieces almost every day.

In
Jacob Sullum we can now question a media leader who truly offers a "diverse"
viewpoint. I, perhaps like you, am an economic libertarian and a social conservative
so I found myself agreeing with him on some points and disagreeing with him on
others. Yet, as I've always found to be the case when interacting with libertarians,
the words he offers are extremely unique and worthwhile. The consideration of
net loss or gains to liberty when voting is particularly enlightening and a perspective
more of us should consider when in the booth. Can you sum up libertarianism simply
with its root word of liberty? There's only one way to find out and it's in this
enterstageright.com exclusive interview.

Bernard Chapin: As one of
two Senior Editors of Reason, how would you describe the magazine to someone
who had never read it before? What is it that makes it unique?

Jacob
Sullum: Reason is the leading American magazine covering politics and
culture from a libertarian (classical liberal) point of view. It deals with many
of the same topics as, say, The Nation or National Review, but from
a perspective that consistently favors individual choice over government control.
By contrast, conservatives and left-liberals tend to favor limited government
only in certain areas.

BC: The motto of Reason is "Free
Minds and Free Markets." Do you believe that economic freedom automatically
produces political freedom? With China, do you think that the more we "engage"
them, the more they will loosen their state-controlled economy? Do you see them
becoming a democratic society without sweeping political changes?

JS:
It depends what you mean by "political freedom." If you mean the right
to vote in democratic elections, there is no necessary connection between economic
freedom and political freedom. But if you mean safety from arbitrary power, security
in one's person and possessions, then economic freedom has a great deal to do
with it. A free market requires the rule of law. It requires freedom of contract
and freedom of association. It requires respect for property rights, which define
a private realm into which the government may trespass only in extraordinary circumstances.
These rights, in turn, make it possible to exercise freedom of speech, freedom
of religion, and freedom of movement. Full economic freedom includes the freedom
to sell subversive books, build a church, or buy an airline ticket to another
country.

When it comes to China, the question is the extent to which the
government can reap the benefits of economic freedom without fully respecting
it. (China's rulers are not prepared, for example, to let people buy unfiltered
Internet access or allow Falun Gong members to rent a meeting place, even though
these transactions are aspects of economic freedom.) Free trade, economic competition,
and the rise of an entrepreneurial middle class definitely have had a liberalizing
impact in China, increasing the free exchange of information, encouraging better
protection of property rights, and whetting the Chinese people's appetite for
choice, which is bound to carry over into the political arena. Whether or not
China gradually becomes something like a liberal democracy, life is indisputably
better and freer there as a result of economic reform.

BC: How do
you market libertarianism to people? How do you approach people who are on the
fence politically? It seems to me that libertarianism would be an easy sell, but
I, personally, am a very usual example of your readership.

JS: One
approach is to draw people in by talking about issues that already interest them.
Just about every American takes a libertarian position on something: freedom of
speech, property rights, drug control, gun control, suicide, taxes, SUVs, zoning
regulations, corporate welfare, Social Security. If you can get them to consider
why they feel so strongly about that particular issue, what principle they feel
is at stake, you may persuade them to extend the principle to cases they had not
previously seen in the same light. If the government has no business stopping
people from smoking tobacco, for instance, why should it stop them from smoking
marijuana? If people have a right to eat what they want, shouldn't they also be
allowed to drive a car without a seat belt or ride a motorcycle without a helmet?

Another important tactic, one that Reason often uses, is to tell
compelling stories about people who have suffered unjustly at the hands of government.
In thinking about how to avoid such cases, readers have to seriously consider
what the proper bounds of government are.

BC: What is your response
to people who regard a Libertarian Party vote as being a wasted one? I know a
great many people who are libertarian in outlook but never vote that way. How
do you respond to people who may say that voting libertarian is pointless?

JS:
In a sense, every vote is a wasted vote, since it will not affect the election's
outcome. The same guy will win whether you go to the polls or not, and no matter
which lever you pull. The main reason I vote (when I do) is that I get satisfaction
from expressing a particular sentiment. That sentiment may be, "I hate Hillary
Clinton," or it may be, "There's no way I'm voting for that socialist."
Sometimes I get pleasure just from voting against every tax increase and bond
issue. And sometimes, I confess, I enjoy voting for someone whose views and principles
are close to my own, especially when I can't stand the other guys in the race.

At the aggregate level, of course, such decisions have been known to swing
elections. Once in a while, a Libertarian candidate will "spoil" a congressional
election, throwing it to the Democrat by attracting votes that otherwise would
have gone to the Republican. I admit this is cause for concern if the Democrat
is marginally more statist than the Republican, so that the upshot is a net loss
for liberty. Usually, though, voting Libertarian will have no such impact, and
perhaps it sends a beneficial signal. Certainly it makes the voter feel better.

BC: What is the one political issue that you feel the most passionate
about?

JS: The war on drugs. It's hard to think of a more basic
right than the freedom to control your own body and mind. I'm with Thomas Szasz
on this: I'd much sooner give up my right to vote than surrender control over
what I ingest.

The attempt to stop people from using certain drugs, itself
a violation of their rights, leads to the erosion of other civil liberties, especially
the right to privacy. In the last few decades, the war on drugs has been the single
biggest factor undermining the Fourth Amendment. It also has impinged on property
rights in other ways (e.g., through asset forfeiture), on freedom of religion
(by banning drug rituals), and on freedom of speech (by punishing people, in essence,
for possessing or disseminating information about drugs). The precedent set by
drug prohibition is frequently cited by paternalists advocating new measures to
protect people from themselves. Other costs of prohibition include property crime,
black market violence, official corruption, funding of terrorism, diversion of
law enforcement resources, deaths from overdoses and tainted drugs, the spread
of disease through needle sharing encouraged by anti-paraphernalia policies, and
the undertreatment of pain by doctors who worry about prescribing narcotics.

In
a book that will be published by Tarcher/Putnam in May, Saying
Yes: In Defense of Drug Use, I challenge one of the key assumptions underlying
the war on drugs: that certain intoxicants cannot be used responsibly. I argue
that the same moral distinctions we apply to alcohol can and should be applied
to other drugs.

JS: What's fascinating about tobacco is that it's a drug in transition.
Until a few decades ago, it was so widely accepted that people didn't even think
of it as a drug. Now it is routinely compared to heroin and crack. It is moving
back toward the illicit status that it occupied in many places after its introduction
in Europe 500 years ago. Prohibition is by no means out of the question, once
the number of smokers is down to a level the government considers manageable.
I wonder, though, if other forms of nicotine (gum, patches, inhalers, lozenges,
beverages) will remain acceptable, not just as quitting aids but as long-term
replacements for cigarettes. Since their hazards are negligible compared to those
of cigarettes and they do not generate noxious fumes, perhaps they will be tolerated.
Then again, our drug laws have never been known for the reasaonableness of the
distinctions they draw.

BC: You publish some interesting demographic
statistics on your website. I was shocked to read that 89.7 percent of your readers
are male. Why is that? Libertarianism, in my mind, should not be gender specific.
Why aren't there more Cathy Youngs? [If you know a way of mass producing excellent
minds like hers, let's start the assembly line at once!] Pardon the slight editorial
commentary here, but do you think it could have anything to do with a desire to
be protected and that this desire is then sublimated into their support for an
obese federal apparatus that then systematically limits many of their freedoms?

JS: Other political magazines also have readerships that are overwhelmingly
male. For example, about 85 percent of National Review's readers are men.
The predominance of men among Reason's readers may be partly due to the
magazine's historical emphasis on economics, a discipline that has never been
popular with women. In recent years we've expanded our cultural coverage, which
may help attract more female readers.

BC: Reason claims to
occupy a space between right and left, but would you say, based on your own personal
experience, that most libertarians are conservatives?

JS: Reason
is neither left nor right. Nor are we in the middle. As consistent supporters
of individual freedom, we disagree with both left-liberals and conservatives,
but that doesn't make us moderates. Roughly speaking, left-liberals combine classical
liberalism with socialism, while conservatives combine it with traditionalism.
We take it straight. Having said that, conservatives in the United States tend
to be more libertarian than conservatives in other countries because the political
heritage they seek to conserve was strongly influenced by classical liberalism.

BC: Mr. Sullum, I like to think that libertarians are the conscience
of the Republican Party and that the libertarian element constantly attempts to
get Republican politicians to focus on principles rather than statism. Do you
feel your main purpose is to steer political discourse in the direction of sound
constitutional principles and freedom? If so, how successful have you been? What
battles do you feel you've won?

JS: The biggest victories for libertarians
in the United States have been developments that we barely think about anymore
because we take them for granted, such as the acceptance of free trade, the rejection
of central economic planning, the deregulation of transportation, the abolition
of conscription, and the protection of unpopular speech. These were all highly
contentious issues at one time, but today the libertarian position on each clearly
has triumphed, although there are still conflicts over some of the details (particularly
in the area of free speech). More recently, welfare reform, which reflected the
basic libertarian principle that no one owes you a living, attracted bipartisan
support. Ideas that once were dismissed as libertarian lunacy, such as Social
Security privatization, education vouchers, and criticism of the war on drugs,
have gained a respectful hearing and attracted support from mainstream politicians.
I don't think we're going to see the repeal of drug prohibition anytime soon,
but there has been significant reform in areas such as pain treatment, medical
marijuana, mandatory minimum sentences, and asset forfeiture.

BC:
Other than Reason, what other magazines or online journals (other than
enterstageright.com of course) do you recommend for others? What periodicals or
authors do you enjoy the most?

JS: I've been reading The New
Republic since college. It's not nearly as interesting as it was under Michael
Kinsley or Andrew Sullivan, but it is a good barometer of middle-of-the-road opinion
inside the Beltway. I read it mainly out of habit and professional duty; it is
rarely an enjoyable experience.

I also subscribe to National Review
(where I used to work), which gives me a good sense of what mainstream conservatives
are thinking about. The magazine has been a bit too terrorism- and war-obsessed
lately, but I usually find at least a few articles that are worth reading. I especially
like the pieces that challenge conservatives to re-examine their assumptions,
such as Ramesh Ponnuru's recent essay on colorblindness as a constitutional principle.

I read The New Yorker mainly for fun. The articles are usually very
well written and often genuinely interesting. It's one of the few periodicals
that lures me into reading long articles on improbable topics, such as Malcolm
Gladwell's pieces on Ronco and the science of fingerprints. Then again, I sometimes
go through an entire issue without reading much more than the cartoon captions.